• by Karlene Lukovitz  @KLmarketdaily, January 2, 2011

The new federal legislation requiring restaurant chains with 20 or more units to begin posting calorie counts on menus (and supplying other nutritional information on request) won't take effect until March, but quick-service restaurants will be getting some early indicators of the effects starting now, at least in California.

Californians are already seeing calorie counts on menu boards in chains including McDonald's, IHOP and Fuddruckers, and other chains are implementing these now, the Los Angeles Times confirms. The reason: A California law with similar requirements is scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1, and while that law isn't enforceable because the federal law preempts it, some chains are nevertheless complying. (On a separate front, California will be enforcing the second phase of a law that bans all use of artificial trans fats by restaurants in the state, effective Jan. 1.)

The big question, of course -- particularly for QSRs and popular fast-casual chains -- is how calorie-count transparency will affect consumer behavior. If major chains have researched the expected impacts, they have not shared the results, or for that matter commented to the media about how the new regulations might affect their sales or strategies.

A majority of diners apparently support the concept of nutritional transparency: In June, Mintel found that more than 60% of restaurant-goers saying that they favor nutritional information being provided on menus (although a smaller proportion -- 44% -- agreed that federal or local governments should facilitate this).

The Times offered a glimpse of consumer behavior in the form of reports from anonymous McDonald's employees in California units already posting calories, who indicated that "some customers opened their eyes wide when they saw the high numbers, while others seemed not to notice." One father was quoted as saying he hadn't noticed the calorie counts, but if he had, it probably wouldn't have affected his decision to treat his 10-year-old son and a friend to Sausage McMuffin meals containing 1,050 calories.

A growing number of QSRs have, of course, been adding healthier options to their menus for some time now. McDonald's, the dominant and most visible QSR, has made it clear that this is part of its business plan -- examples include its salads, healthier options available as part of its kids' Happy Meals (low-fat milk or apple juice and Apple Dippers, instead of soda or fries), its recent addition (following Starbucks) of oatmeal to its breakfast menu, and its current tests of "Fresh Garden" wraps (grilled or fried chicken breast with veggies, in flour tortillas).

Other recent examples of the increasingly common practice of adding healthier menu options: Dunkin' Donuts just added egg-white turkey sausage and egg-white veggie versions of its breakfast wraps, and El Pollo Loco rolled out a reduced-sodium tortilla soup. And one growing chain, Burgerville, is entirely premised on offering fresher, healthier fast-food options.

The National Restaurant Association has strongly supported the uniform national standard of menu labeling, saying that providing healthy choices is best for both customers and the industry. The association, with partner Healthy Dining, has been helping operators provide healthier-yet-appealing options for years now, and in September launched an American Express-sponsored online resource ("Restaurant Nutrition: News & Insights for the Foodservice Industry") that provides guidance on labeling regulations and making offerings for kids and adults healthier by reducing calories, fat and sodium.

Yet, clearly unhealthy menu options continue to proliferate. The Times also recently ran an article headlined "Fast-Food Restaurants Plan a Heaping Helping of Excess," which detailed a list of menu items that will be introduced by major QSRs in 2011 that are, in the writer's words, "cheesier and gooier" and "flout principles of healthful eating and instead celebrate a spirit of wanton gluttony."

Raising the obvious question: Is there a major disconnect here?

"It may appear that way, but what's really happening is that QSRs are serving an increasingly polarized consumer base," says Dennis Lombardi, EVP foodservice strategies for WD Partners, a restaurant and retail consultancy. "They are simultaneously trying to serve those who want healthier, 'better-for-you' options, and those who want really good value and taste, and don't necessarily care about the nutrition or health aspects."

Business realities and widely varying consumer preferences mean that this dual-appeal approach is likely to prevail long-term, in Lombardi's assessment.

"QSRs, and all restaurants, have to deal with the 'need states' of their various consumers," he says. "It's not easy to balance divergent consumer needs and preferences on a menu, combined with what a restaurant's cooking facilities are capable of producing, plus enable profitability for franchises. Dropping the ball on even one of these factors is potentially disastrous from an overall restaurant brand or company perspective."

Still, it's very clear that QSRs -- like packaged food and beverage makers -- are keenly aware that demonstrating responsiveness to mounting public concern about obesity and other health issues (and costs) relating to ingesting foods high in calories, fat and sodium will become ever more critical to their brand images, not to mention in avoiding the possibility of more aggressive government intervention in the years ahead.

The healthier options available within Happy Meals aren't cutting the mustard with consumer groups like the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which is backing a much-publicized lawsuit by a California mother attempting to force McDonald's to stop offering toy premiums with those kids' meals. And a more active Food and Drug Administration, combined with high-profile efforts such as First Lady Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" initiative, promises to keep the heat on restaurants and food makers alike.